(01-23-2017 05:34 PM)goofus Wrote:  That's why I believe the Rose Bowl game is destined to be demoted. The game is too much linked to the Rose Bowl Stadium to ever move. But sponsers will eventually want to play the playoff games in the new shiny stadiums. So the Rose Bowl will be demoted to Citrus Bowl status, continue to play on New Year's day, probably starting at 1pm eastern / 10 am pacific.

(01-23-2017 05:34 PM)goofus Wrote:  That's why I believe the Rose Bowl game is destined to be demoted. The game is too much linked to the Rose Bowl Stadium to ever move. But sponsers will eventually want to play the playoff games in the new shiny stadiums. So the Rose Bowl will be demoted to Citrus Bowl status, continue to play on New Year's day, probably starting at 1pm eastern / 10 am pacific.

I'll take my odds finding Sasquatch.

(01-20-2017 08:28 PM)goofus Wrote:  I saw that the City of San Diego is thinking about tearing down Qualcom after 2020. After they build a small stadium for MLS and SDSU.

Once Qualcom is gone, the Holoday Bowl and Ponsettia Bowl will be looking for new homes. I winder if the Holiday Bowl would move to Los Angeles playing in the new Rams stadium.

But you got to wonder if the Rose Bowl eventually gets demoted Holiday Bowl level and a new bowl game in the Rams Stadium takes over the playoff game spot in LA

No, the Rose Bowl will not be demoted.

And the smaller San Diego stadium might be fine for the Holiday Bowl. It's never one that fills up anyway. I've been to a few and I never remember it being more than 40,000 or so out of the 60,000 capacity. So, a nice, new 25,000 seat stadium will be great for Atzecs/MLS team...and will be able to sellout a good Holiday Bowl game. (Especially since bowl attendance keeps dropping anyway...)

(01-24-2017 03:46 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 05:34 PM)goofus Wrote:  That's why I believe the Rose Bowl game is destined to be demoted. The game is too much linked to the Rose Bowl Stadium to ever move. But sponsers will eventually want to play the playoff games in the new shiny stadiums. So the Rose Bowl will be demoted to Citrus Bowl status, continue to play on New Year's day, probably starting at 1pm eastern / 10 am pacific.

I'll take my odds finding Sasquatch.

It will be a slow decline, but it will happen over time.
The Rose Bowl stadium has already been deemed not good enough for a Super Bowl or NCG. The stadium was also not willing to let the Chargers play there. Eventually UCLA will move out in 2046. Unless they plan a majo tear down, the Rose Bowl's days are numbered. It may not happen until 2046, but it will happen.

Why wouldn't they let the Chargers play there? That's obnoxious.

I have a hard time believing they're gonna be demoted but they also need to do a hard over renovation of the stadium. What I think we'll end up seeing is a similar scenario of that of the Cotton Bowl. The old game will go to the shiny brand new stadium and a new game will go to the Rose Bowl stadium played January 1 to match the tradition of the Rose Parade. And once and for all the Tournament of Roses committee won't ever again be bullied into changing their tradition for sports junkies.

As I recall, Pasadena has placed restrictions on the frequency of use of the Rose Bowl and the Rose Bowl turned down overtures from the NFL to host the Rams and/or Chargers/Raiders because they would have to give up a lucrative music event that brings in more money than a handful of football games.

(01-24-2017 06:54 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 03:46 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 05:34 PM)goofus Wrote:  That's why I believe the Rose Bowl game is destined to be demoted. The game is too much linked to the Rose Bowl Stadium to ever move. But sponsers will eventually want to play the playoff games in the new shiny stadiums. So the Rose Bowl will be demoted to Citrus Bowl status, continue to play on New Year's day, probably starting at 1pm eastern / 10 am pacific.

I'll take my odds finding Sasquatch.

It will be a slow decline, but it will happen over time.
The Rose Bowl stadium has already been deemed not good enough for a Super Bowl or NCG. The stadium was also not willing to let the Chargers play there. Eventually UCLA will move out in 2046. Unless they plan a majo tear down, the Rose Bowl's days are numbered. It may not happen until 2046, but it will happen.

That's insane. The Rose Bowl isn't holding NFL or national championship games because it is *choosing* not to do so. This is about as shortsighted as those people in the 1970s that thought those cookie-cutter stadiums like Veterans Stadium, Three Rivers Stadium and the old Busch Stadium were the wave of the future and that old historic venues like Wrigley Field and Fenway Park were heading to the scrap heap. 40 years later, Wrigley and Fenway are still standing and stronger than ever and those modern venues have been imploded (much less demoted).

I'll always tell my kids about the time that I got to attend the Rose Bowl and the *venue* itself is an inherent part of the experience. The marquee out front. The sunset over the mountains. How a massive stadium that holds over 100,000 people can still make you feel that you're close to the field. This is quite different than, say, the Peach Bowl, which could be played in the Georgia Dome or the new Mercedes-Benz Stadium or at Turner Field or anywhere else in Atlanta and no one would care. No one would care about the time that they got to go to the shiny new Rams stadium, either. Those stadiums are simply placeholders for whatever event is taking place there and can be duplicated anywhere else. In contrast, the Rose Bowl is one of the unique places (like Wrigley, Fenway or Lambeau Field) where the venue truly ADDS to the event. That value is irreplaceable and non-transferable.

(01-24-2017 09:33 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  As I recall, Pasadena has placed restrictions on the frequency of use of the Rose Bowl and the Rose Bowl turned down overtures from the NFL to host the Rams and/or Chargers/Raiders because they would have to give up a lucrative music event that brings in more money than a handful of football games.

It's not a baseball stadium, with the Chargers in town, it potentially it would have been used 20-30 times a year. About 10 extra games a year for at the most 2 years...big deal.

They're using the RB for charity walks and stuff, so I'm not buying it. They just don't want to host the Chargers (probably because they don't want to do any extra field maintenance).

(01-24-2017 10:49 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 09:33 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  As I recall, Pasadena has placed restrictions on the frequency of use of the Rose Bowl and the Rose Bowl turned down overtures from the NFL to host the Rams and/or Chargers/Raiders because they would have to give up a lucrative music event that brings in more money than a handful of football games.

It's not a baseball stadium, with the Chargers in town, it potentially it would have been used 20-30 times a year. About 10 extra games a year for at the most 2 years...big deal.

They're using the RB for charity walks and stuff, so I'm not buying it. They just don't want to host the Chargers (probably because they don't want to do any extra field maintenance).

Ah Google helps. Apparently a few years ago the city passed an ordinance giving a waiver to the event restrictions to permit an NFL team to play there no more than five years.

(01-24-2017 10:05 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 06:54 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 03:46 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 05:34 PM)goofus Wrote:  That's why I believe the Rose Bowl game is destined to be demoted. The game is too much linked to the Rose Bowl Stadium to ever move. But sponsers will eventually want to play the playoff games in the new shiny stadiums. So the Rose Bowl will be demoted to Citrus Bowl status, continue to play on New Year's day, probably starting at 1pm eastern / 10 am pacific.

I'll take my odds finding Sasquatch.

It will be a slow decline, but it will happen over time.
The Rose Bowl stadium has already been deemed not good enough for a Super Bowl or NCG. The stadium was also not willing to let the Chargers play there. Eventually UCLA will move out in 2046. Unless they plan a majo tear down, the Rose Bowl's days are numbered. It may not happen until 2046, but it will happen.

That's insane. The Rose Bowl isn't holding NFL or national championship games because it is *choosing* not to do so. This is about as shortsighted as those people in the 1970s that thought those cookie-cutter stadiums like Veterans Stadium, Three Rivers Stadium and the old Busch Stadium were the wave of the future and that old historic venues like Wrigley Field and Fenway Park were heading to the scrap heap. 40 years later, Wrigley and Fenway are still standing and stronger than ever and those modern venues have been imploded (much less demoted).

I'll always tell my kids about the time that I got to attend the Rose Bowl and the *venue* itself is an inherent part of the experience. The marquee out front. The sunset over the mountains. How a massive stadium that holds over 100,000 people can still make you feel that you're close to the field. This is quite different than, say, the Peach Bowl, which could be played in the Georgia Dome or the new Mercedes-Benz Stadium or at Turner Field or anywhere else in Atlanta and no one would care. No one would care about the time that they got to go to the shiny new Rams stadium, either. Those stadiums are simply placeholders for whatever event is taking place there and can be duplicated anywhere else. In contrast, the Rose Bowl is one of the unique places (like Wrigley, Fenway or Lambeau Field) where the venue truly ADDS to the event. That value is irreplaceable and non-transferable.

I don't believe we are really arguing. We all agree that the stadium will probably stay there forever and there will probably always be a game on New Year's Day. I just believe that the game itself will decline in importance in terms of the playoffs and conference championships.

(01-20-2017 07:09 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Gotta think with the new stadium coming, Las Vegas bowl will try and move to a Post Christmas bowl with two P5's or even try and become a CFP Access bowl when the bids go out in 2020.

Gotta figure 2nd or 3rd PAC verse another P5.

Pretty sure ChikFilA and the Georgia World Congress Center Authority are not giving that up.

(01-24-2017 10:05 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 06:54 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 03:46 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 05:34 PM)goofus Wrote:  That's why I believe the Rose Bowl game is destined to be demoted. The game is too much linked to the Rose Bowl Stadium to ever move. But sponsers will eventually want to play the playoff games in the new shiny stadiums. So the Rose Bowl will be demoted to Citrus Bowl status, continue to play on New Year's day, probably starting at 1pm eastern / 10 am pacific.

I'll take my odds finding Sasquatch.

It will be a slow decline, but it will happen over time.
The Rose Bowl stadium has already been deemed not good enough for a Super Bowl or NCG. The stadium was also not willing to let the Chargers play there. Eventually UCLA will move out in 2046. Unless they plan a majo tear down, the Rose Bowl's days are numbered. It may not happen until 2046, but it will happen.

That's insane. The Rose Bowl isn't holding NFL or national championship games because it is *choosing* not to do so. This is about as shortsighted as those people in the 1970s that thought those cookie-cutter stadiums like Veterans Stadium, Three Rivers Stadium and the old Busch Stadium were the wave of the future and that old historic venues like Wrigley Field and Fenway Park were heading to the scrap heap. 40 years later, Wrigley and Fenway are still standing and stronger than ever and those modern venues have been imploded (much less demoted).

I'll always tell my kids about the time that I got to attend the Rose Bowl and the *venue* itself is an inherent part of the experience. The marquee out front. The sunset over the mountains. How a massive stadium that holds over 100,000 people can still make you feel that you're close to the field. This is quite different than, say, the Peach Bowl, which could be played in the Georgia Dome or the new Mercedes-Benz Stadium or at Turner Field or anywhere else in Atlanta and no one would care. No one would care about the time that they got to go to the shiny new Rams stadium, either. Those stadiums are simply placeholders for whatever event is taking place there and can be duplicated anywhere else. In contrast, the Rose Bowl is one of the unique places (like Wrigley, Fenway or Lambeau Field) where the venue truly ADDS to the event. That value is irreplaceable and non-transferable.

Wrigley and Fenway weren't built to last like cathedrals. They are both from an era of ballparks that were just as disposable as the 70/80's cookie cutter stadiums.

(01-24-2017 04:31 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 10:05 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 06:54 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 03:46 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 05:34 PM)goofus Wrote:  That's why I believe the Rose Bowl game is destined to be demoted. The game is too much linked to the Rose Bowl Stadium to ever move. But sponsers will eventually want to play the playoff games in the new shiny stadiums. So the Rose Bowl will be demoted to Citrus Bowl status, continue to play on New Year's day, probably starting at 1pm eastern / 10 am pacific.

I'll take my odds finding Sasquatch.

It will be a slow decline, but it will happen over time.
The Rose Bowl stadium has already been deemed not good enough for a Super Bowl or NCG. The stadium was also not willing to let the Chargers play there. Eventually UCLA will move out in 2046. Unless they plan a majo tear down, the Rose Bowl's days are numbered. It may not happen until 2046, but it will happen.

That's insane. The Rose Bowl isn't holding NFL or national championship games because it is *choosing* not to do so. This is about as shortsighted as those people in the 1970s that thought those cookie-cutter stadiums like Veterans Stadium, Three Rivers Stadium and the old Busch Stadium were the wave of the future and that old historic venues like Wrigley Field and Fenway Park were heading to the scrap heap. 40 years later, Wrigley and Fenway are still standing and stronger than ever and those modern venues have been imploded (much less demoted).

I'll always tell my kids about the time that I got to attend the Rose Bowl and the *venue* itself is an inherent part of the experience. The marquee out front. The sunset over the mountains. How a massive stadium that holds over 100,000 people can still make you feel that you're close to the field. This is quite different than, say, the Peach Bowl, which could be played in the Georgia Dome or the new Mercedes-Benz Stadium or at Turner Field or anywhere else in Atlanta and no one would care. No one would care about the time that they got to go to the shiny new Rams stadium, either. Those stadiums are simply placeholders for whatever event is taking place there and can be duplicated anywhere else. In contrast, the Rose Bowl is one of the unique places (like Wrigley, Fenway or Lambeau Field) where the venue truly ADDS to the event. That value is irreplaceable and non-transferable.

Wrigley and Fenway weren't built to last like cathedrals. They are both from an era of ballparks that were just as disposable as the 70/80's cookie cutter stadiums.

Then you have never been to Fenway Park.

Fenway is an awful venue other than its history and uniqueness. If built in the 60's, it would have been torn down or replaced by now and only still exists because of that uniqueness and a lack of land in and around Boston.

Little Rock's minor league park was the 3rd oldest professional baseball park (behind Wrigley and Fenway). There was a faction that didn't want the new park to get built. I would try to explain to the opponents I knew that there was a difference between and old and charming and just old.

(01-25-2017 03:28 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Fenway is an awful venue other than its history and uniqueness. If built in the 60's, it would have been torn down or replaced by now and only still exists because of that uniqueness and a lack of land in and around Boston.

I would think "uniqueness" is part and parcel to what makes a venue great. We'll just have to agree to disagree about this.

Most Boston fans appreciate the history but hate the venue...cramped seats, the poor sightlines, etc...

(01-24-2017 07:58 PM)utpotts Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 04:31 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 10:05 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 06:54 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 03:46 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I'll take my odds finding Sasquatch.

It will be a slow decline, but it will happen over time.
The Rose Bowl stadium has already been deemed not good enough for a Super Bowl or NCG. The stadium was also not willing to let the Chargers play there. Eventually UCLA will move out in 2046. Unless they plan a majo tear down, the Rose Bowl's days are numbered. It may not happen until 2046, but it will happen.

That's insane. The Rose Bowl isn't holding NFL or national championship games because it is *choosing* not to do so. This is about as shortsighted as those people in the 1970s that thought those cookie-cutter stadiums like Veterans Stadium, Three Rivers Stadium and the old Busch Stadium were the wave of the future and that old historic venues like Wrigley Field and Fenway Park were heading to the scrap heap. 40 years later, Wrigley and Fenway are still standing and stronger than ever and those modern venues have been imploded (much less demoted).

I'll always tell my kids about the time that I got to attend the Rose Bowl and the *venue* itself is an inherent part of the experience. The marquee out front. The sunset over the mountains. How a massive stadium that holds over 100,000 people can still make you feel that you're close to the field. This is quite different than, say, the Peach Bowl, which could be played in the Georgia Dome or the new Mercedes-Benz Stadium or at Turner Field or anywhere else in Atlanta and no one would care. No one would care about the time that they got to go to the shiny new Rams stadium, either. Those stadiums are simply placeholders for whatever event is taking place there and can be duplicated anywhere else. In contrast, the Rose Bowl is one of the unique places (like Wrigley, Fenway or Lambeau Field) where the venue truly ADDS to the event. That value is irreplaceable and non-transferable.

Wrigley and Fenway weren't built to last like cathedrals. They are both from an era of ballparks that were just as disposable as the 70/80's cookie cutter stadiums.

Then you have never been to Fenway Park.

I have and like C2 said, it's a dump. It smells like 100 y.o piss with really narrow seats and questionable structural integrity. I can appreciate the history and uniqueness of the field, but the stands themselves need to be rebuilt.

(01-23-2017 04:28 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  a bowl designed to bring holiday tourists to San Diego ...

And the Chargers used to play in San Diego. So did the Clippers.


Get with the times, move on, change the "design". For the better.